Bama's schedule is pretty bad but..

Rolltide94 · Oct 16, 2018

nddulac said:
I call BS. Someone wins the SEC Championship every single year.

He's probably projecting Alabama's problems onto the rest of the league.

4down20 · Oct 16, 2018

nddulac said:
I call BS. Someone wins the SEC Championship every single year.

Well twice now a team has won the National Championship from the SEC without winning the conference. Ohio St also went to the playoffs without winning their conference.

So there is something to it - mostly that the way conferences decide their champions is fucked up.

DeafOranguntan · Oct 16, 2018

4down20 said:
Well twice now a team has won the National Championship from the SEC without winning the conference. Ohio St also went to the playoffs without winning their conference.

So there is something to it - mostly that the way conferences decide their champions is fucked up.

How would you suggest the change conference championships? I personally like the way most conferences do it. I just think the championship game needs to actually matter. And I think we discussed this last year, but to me, the playoffs should be about the team that earned it and is most deserving. I always thought Bama was the best team in 2011 and 2017. But the eyeball test shouldn't matter because they lost the game that should have mattered. We just need some consistency in that (they fucked UGA over in 2007 because they didn't win the conference, and I'd say they were the best team that year).

4down20 · Oct 17, 2018

DeafOranguntan said:
How would you suggest the change conference championships? I personally like the way most conferences do it. I just think the championship game needs to actually matter. And I think we discussed this last year, but to me, the playoffs should be about the team that earned it and is most deserving. I always thought Bama was the best team in 2011 and 2017. But the eyeball test shouldn't matter because they lost the game that should have mattered. We just need some consistency in that (they fucked UGA over in 2007 because they didn't win the conference, and I'd say they were the best team that year).

"because they lost a game that should have mattered"

And that's the problem. In the current format it's actually better to lose to a crappy team than it is to lose to a better team. I'll go straight to 2011.

Alabama loses 1 game, by 3 pts in OT to the #1 team in the country. Unfortunately that #1 team is also in the same division as Alabama, at the time a total of 6 teams in a group. Because these 2 teams happen to be in that group of 6, now 7, suddenly that disqualifies that team from everything else.

Meanwhile, Oklahoma St goes and loses to a team that wouldn't have been bowl eligible if not for the lose, a team that shouldn't have been bowl eligible. It's also a conference game, but because it was a shitty team with many conferences losses, the game doesn't count in terms of the conference championship, Oklahoma St somehow becomes "More deserving" than Alabama.

When a system rewards a team for losing to worse teams, something is fucked up in that. Luckily at this point it's just complaints by people who think it should be that way. In 2011, Georgia plays LSU in the SECCG. A good conference setup puts the top2 teams in that game, which would have been a rematch of Alabama and LSU, and the winner of that game would have gone on to play OkSt most likely.

And then there is last year. Similiar thing, however this time both Alabama and Georgia lose to Auburn in the regular season. Georgia gets the rematch. Based solely on 1 thing - Georgia plays in the East division, a weaker and obviously easier to win division and Alabama and Auburn are in the West Division. So basically Georgia gets rewarded for playing in an easier conference. Alabama - didn't lose to Auburn as bad as Georgia did, was ranked below Alabama, etc.

Because the conferences weren't set up for this kind of stuff, they only want to find their own champion. The national stage means absolutely nothing in conferences. The conferences aren't some method where by they find the best team in the conference, it's a method by where they find a champion. And when it comes to conference championships, it doesn't matter that Alabama lost to LSU and Oklahoma St lost to Iowa St nationally, it's all about the conference itself. Until people start crying about how conference this and that matters on a national stage - when really it should not. The accomplishment of winning your conference is in itself it's own weight/reward.

But these things can be addressed to help the national stage, and in many ways make things more fair in general.

Instead of divisions where 1 is much better than the other, which exists in all P5 conferences with divisions, you get rid of them completely. And then you just rotate the teams, outside a few rival games that people will want played every year no matter what, probably 2. So then instead of Alabama playing Georgia every 7 or whatever years, it's every 2 or 3. Things will be much more even on the schedule, and Georgia/Florida don't get the easy ride all the time while SEC West teams play tougher games(although there have been times when it was flipped the other way, and that wasn't any better either).

And then at the end of the year, you take the 2 highest ranked teams in the college football playoff and you put them against each other. You can also do somekind of h2h and records type stuff if you wanted, that would still be better. However you are still going to maintain that "only figuring out the conference championship" mentality that way, which is fine if that's what they want. But if you use the college football playoff rankings instead, then you also take into account the OOC games/results. Either way is fine most of the time, Ohio St and Penn St a few years ago, Alabama and LSU in 2011, etc. And I'm guessing in the end Alabama would have taken it over Georgia last year as a tiebreaker, as any metric other than division champion label puts Alabama in.

Division champions is just another form of AQ and AQ is terrible.

The Big12 is the only one doing it right currently in this way, mostly because they have no other choice. But when the NCAA changed the rule that required 12 teams in divisions to have a conference championship game to allow the Big12 to have it's championship game with the 2 best teams, it also allowed the other conferences to get rid of their divisions and do the same. So far none have done so obviously, but I'm hoping. It technically wasn't even possible until then.

4down20 · Oct 17, 2018

And btw, as far as last year goes between Alabama and Georgia - that was pretty much unavoidable unless Auburn wins. If Alabama beats Auburn, Georgia goes to the playoffs over Ohio St. If Auburn beats Alabama, then it's probably closer, but I think Georgia would go - 50/50.

Sometimes a conference just has 2 of the 4 best teams. With the above changes I mention it's not going to happen near as often, it will only be a matter of when there are 3 good teams from the same conference as there is just 1 conference championship game no matter what, and then the other conferences have champions with multiple losses. The same thing in any other playoff year and it's just 1 SEC team.

When the other conferences crap out, it's just what it is.

Across The Field · Oct 17, 2018

4down20 said:
Alabama loses 1 game, by 3 pts in OT to the #1 team in the country. Unfortunately that #1 team is also in the same division as Alabama, at the time a total of 6 teams in a group. Because these 2 teams happen to be in that group of 6, now 7, suddenly that disqualifies that team from everything else.

Meanwhile, Oklahoma St goes and loses to a team that wouldn't have been bowl eligible if not for the lose, a team that shouldn't have been bowl eligible. It's also a conference game, but because it was a shitty team with many conferences losses, the game doesn't count in terms of the conference championship, Oklahoma St somehow becomes "More deserving" than Alabama.

Oklahoma State was "more deserving" of a game against LSU because of several reasons:
1. Oklahoma State had won the 2nd best conference that year, LSU had won the best. It was an amazing matchup of an elite offense and an elite defense from two different styles.
2. Oklahoma State had more ranked wins than Bama that year and, depending on what site you look at, as good if not a better SOS.
3. We had seen LSU already beat Bama.
4. Regarding OK State's loss: It happened on the very day that they went through an enormous tragedy when two of the women's basketball coaches, including the head coach, died in a plane crash. I think it's more than fair to excuse a poor performance on a day like that, considering how close-knit the athletic communities are on college campuses.
5. Even your FEI rankings put Oklahoma State ahead of Alabama that year.

7Samurai13 · Oct 17, 2018

Rolltide94 said:
How long was this bet, because Captain Underboobs caused me to take 3 minutes to read this post. She is very distracting.

Until the end of the season, or until Ohio State losses. I fear after the season though I am going to have some gay Trump Avy from AG.

BamaDude · Oct 17, 2018

nddulac said:
I call BS. Someone wins the SEC Championship every single year.

But twice this decade the team that won the SEC lost to another SEC team in the NC game.

4down20 · Oct 17, 2018

Across The Field said:
Oklahoma State was "more deserving" of a game against LSU because of several reasons:
1. Oklahoma State had won the 2nd best conference that year, LSU had won the best. It was an amazing matchup of an elite offense and an elite defense from two different styles.
2. Oklahoma State had more ranked wins than Bama that year and, depending on what site you look at, as good if not a better SOS.
3. We had seen LSU already beat Bama.
4. Regarding OK State's loss: It happened on the very day that they went through an enormous tragedy when two of the women's basketball coaches, including the head coach, died in a plane crash. I think it's more than fair to excuse a poor performance on a day like that, considering how close-knit the athletic communities are on college campuses.
5. Even your FEI rankings put Oklahoma State ahead of Alabama that year.

1. Dont' give a fuck about conferences. They mean absolutely nothing on the national stage. At no point in their season did OkSt face an opponent as tough as LSU, and they still had a loss.

2. Don't give a fuck, they had a worse SoS - almost TWICE as easy as Alabama's - 1.65 vs 0.85.

3. Don't give a fuck, Alabama was the better team it just didn't show on the scoreboard.

4. Bullshit. That's such a lame fucking excuse. They lost that game in the prep leading up to the game over the week, not in the final few hours. Bullshit.

5. .299 vs .300 in overall FEI. Not much difference in that stat, however that's just an effeciency ranking - that is not a season ranking. A season ranking that has 2 teams that close, with such a SoS difference would easily rank Alabama over OkSt. You notice it has Wisconsin #5 despite having 3 losses? Because it's not a season ranking.

B_dub · Oct 17, 2018

4down20 said:
"because they lost a game that should have mattered"

And that's the problem. In the current format it's actually better to lose to a crappy team than it is to lose to a better team. I'll go straight to 2011.

Alabama loses 1 game, by 3 pts in OT to the #1 team in the country. Unfortunately that #1 team is also in the same division as Alabama, at the time a total of 6 teams in a group. Because these 2 teams happen to be in that group of 6, now 7, suddenly that disqualifies that team from everything else.

Meanwhile, Oklahoma St goes and loses to a team that wouldn't have been bowl eligible if not for the lose, a team that shouldn't have been bowl eligible. It's also a conference game, but because it was a shitty team with many conferences losses, the game doesn't count in terms of the conference championship, Oklahoma St somehow becomes "More deserving" than Alabama.

When a system rewards a team for losing to worse teams, something is fucked up in that. Luckily at this point it's just complaints by people who think it should be that way. In 2011, Georgia plays LSU in the SECCG. A good conference setup puts the top2 teams in that game, which would have been a rematch of Alabama and LSU, and the winner of that game would have gone on to play OkSt most likely.

And then there is last year. Similiar thing, however this time both Alabama and Georgia lose to Auburn in the regular season. Georgia gets the rematch. Based solely on 1 thing - Georgia plays in the East division, a weaker and obviously easier to win division and Alabama and Auburn are in the West Division. So basically Georgia gets rewarded for playing in an easier conference. Alabama - didn't lose to Auburn as bad as Georgia did, was ranked below Alabama, etc.

Because the conferences weren't set up for this kind of stuff, they only want to find their own champion. The national stage means absolutely nothing in conferences. The conferences aren't some method where by they find the best team in the conference, it's a method by where they find a champion. And when it comes to conference championships, it doesn't matter that Alabama lost to LSU and Oklahoma St lost to Iowa St nationally, it's all about the conference itself. Until people start crying about how conference this and that matters on a national stage - when really it should not. The accomplishment of winning your conference is in itself it's own weight/reward.

But these things can be addressed to help the national stage, and in many ways make things more fair in general.

Instead of divisions where 1 is much better than the other, which exists in all P5 conferences with divisions, you get rid of them completely. And then you just rotate the teams, outside a few rival games that people will want played every year no matter what, probably 2. So then instead of Alabama playing Georgia every 7 or whatever years, it's every 2 or 3. Things will be much more even on the schedule, and Georgia/Florida don't get the easy ride all the time while SEC West teams play tougher games(although there have been times when it was flipped the other way, and that wasn't any better either).

And then at the end of the year, you take the 2 highest ranked teams in the college football playoff and you put them against each other. You can also do somekind of h2h and records type stuff if you wanted, that would still be better. However you are still going to maintain that "only figuring out the conference championship" mentality that way, which is fine if that's what they want. But if you use the college football playoff rankings instead, then you also take into account the OOC games/results. Either way is fine most of the time, Ohio St and Penn St a few years ago, Alabama and LSU in 2011, etc. And I'm guessing in the end Alabama would have taken it over Georgia last year as a tiebreaker, as any metric other than division champion label puts Alabama in.

Division champions is just another form of AQ and AQ is terrible.

The Big12 is the only one doing it right currently in this way, mostly because they have no other choice. But when the NCAA changed the rule that required 12 teams in divisions to have a conference championship game to allow the Big12 to have it's championship game with the 2 best teams, it also allowed the other conferences to get rid of their divisions and do the same. So far none have done so obviously, but I'm hoping. It technically wasn't even possible until then.

Yes, I both love and hate the new Big 12 championship at the same time. It has both the power to put you in the playoffs or bite you in the ass given that your going to have to beat the same team twice. Overall I think it’s a good thing though.

Across The Field · Oct 17, 2018

4down20 said:
1. Dont' give a fuck about conferences. They mean absolutely nothing on the national stage. At no point in their season did OkSt face an opponent as tough as LSU, and they still had a loss.

2. Don't give a fuck, they had a worse SoS - almost TWICE as easy as Alabama's - 1.65 vs 0.85.

3. Don't give a fuck, Alabama was the better team it just didn't show on the scoreboard.

4. Bullshit. That's such a lame fucking excuse. They lost that game in the prep leading up to the game over the week, not in the final few hours. Bullshit.

5. .299 vs .300 in overall FEI. Not much difference in that stat, however that's just an effeciency ranking - that is not a season ranking. A season ranking that has 2 teams that close, with such a SoS difference would easily rank Alabama over OkSt. You notice it has Wisconsin #5 despite having 3 losses? Because it's not a season ranking.

What a faggy, bullshit response in its entirety. There were PLENTY of reasons why OK State deserved it that were 100% valid.

4down20 · Oct 17, 2018

Across The Field said:
What a faggy, bullshit response in its entirety. There were PLENTY of reasons why OK State deserved it that were 100% valid.

Since you quoted FEI numbers for that year: #70 Iowa State - that is the team they lost too.

You lose to the #70 team for any reason and you don't deserve shit when it comes to a national championship.

OkSt got what they deserved, a BCS bowl.

Hell the only team that possibly got screwed that year would have been LSU, who would have had an easy win if they play OkSt, instead they had to play the only team that was better than them and lost.

Deep Creek · Oct 17, 2018

B_dub said:
Yes, I both love and hate the new Big 12 championship at the same time. It has both the power to put you in the playoffs or bite you in the ass given that your going to have to beat the same team twice. Overall I think it’s a good thing though.

The 2nd place team has something to gain and nothing to lose. The 1st place team has everything to lose and only something to gain if the opponent is good enough to give 'em an SOS boost with a win. (If they need it.)

You guys beating TCU a second time last year didn't help you get into the CFP IMO. With your resume, you'd have been in with an 11-1 record as well as a 12-1 record.

Across The Field · Oct 17, 2018

4down20 said:
Since you quoted FEI numbers for that year: #70 Iowa State - that is the team they lost too.

You lose to the #70 team for any reason and you don't deserve shit when it comes to a national championship.

OkSt got what they deserved, a BCS bowl.

Hell the only team that possibly got screwed that year would have been LSU, who would have had an easy win if they play OkSt, instead they had to play the only team that was better than them and lost.

Don't give a fuck, still better than Alabama, and the FEI is infallible to you. The nation was screwed and Bama gets an undeserved title against a team that had already proven to be better.

4down20 · Oct 17, 2018

Across The Field said:
Don't give a fuck, still better than Alabama, and the FEI is infallible to you. The nation was screwed and Bama gets an undeserved title against a team that had already proven to be better.

Then #70 Iowa St was better than OkSt that year and already proved OkSt didn't belong anywhere near a national championship.

Also - Iowa was better than Ohio St last year? Urban just keeps sucking more and more. Can't even put together a higher quality team than Iowa.

Actually - 31 pt blowout. Ohio St is Iowa's bitch.

4down20 · Oct 17, 2018

B_dub said:
Yes, I both love and hate the new Big 12 championship at the same time. It has both the power to put you in the playoffs or bite you in the ass given that your going to have to beat the same team twice. Overall I think it’s a good thing though.

Yeah it's one of those things you don't need/want until you do.

Rolltide94 · Oct 17, 2018

7Samurai13 said:
Until the end of the season, or until Ohio State losses. I fear after the season though I am going to have some gay Trump Avy from AG.

I guess I will suffer through.

THUNDER · Oct 18, 2018

Across The Field said:
Don't give a fuck, still better than Alabama, and the FEI is infallible to you. The nation was screwed and Bama gets an undeserved title against a team that had already proven to be better.

Waaaahhhhhh................Typical Ohio state fan.

ralphiewvu · Oct 18, 2018

Mistaken4193 said:
Clemson and Ohio States are just as bad if not worse. So why is Bama the only one who "hasnt played anyone" and getting criticized??

This was a hell of a well played troll thread. Even though you had no intention on doing that. Great work

trojanfan12 · Oct 18, 2018

Rolltide94 said:
I agree with this, but not about adding more conference games, we should all be playing 8, no conference should have divisions, best two teams are in the CCG, with the conferences each deciding what best means. Every P5 team has to play two P5 OOC games or you are not eligible. If you are a G5 team and want to be eligible, you should have to play at least 3 P5's. Also FCS games do not count for bowl eligibility purposes.

Works for me.

As for number of conference games, as I said I don't care if it's 8 or 9 conference games, just so all conferences are playing the same number.

Now we just need the conferences and NCAA to listen. lol

Bama's schedule is pretty bad but..

Well-Known Member

Quit checking me out.

Well-Known Member

Quit checking me out.

Quit checking me out.

Oaky Afterbirth

Funniest SH member

Well-Known Member

Quit checking me out.

Well-Known Member

Oaky Afterbirth

Quit checking me out.

Well-Known Member

Oaky Afterbirth

Quit checking me out.

Quit checking me out.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

R.I.P. Robotic Dreams. Fight On!

Similar threads